Search the Community

Does a member need to be recognized by the chair before moving previous question or can she just call "Question" without being recognized by the chair?

Can a member use a point of order to obtain the floor and then call the previous question? At a recent large meeting members were to seek recognition by lining up at a microphone per the assemblies rules. Member A was recognized but before he began to speak was interrupted by Member B who rose from his seat calling for a point of order. Member B was recognized, came to the microphone and made the point that debate had gone on for too long. The chair ruled the point was not well taken. Then Member B moved the Previous Question. A second was obtained, the chair stated the motion, put it to a vote and with 2/3 in the affirmative the motion passed. Several people in line were not happy because Member B had "jumped the Queue"- there were several people in line behind Member A waiting to speak. Evidently at least 2/3 of the people were quite happy with this interruption. If Member B had interrupted to call the previous question, he would have been ignored or reminded that without getting in line his speech was not in order. However, he obtained the floor properly, right? And "when assigned the floor, a member may use it for any proper purpose" 42.5. In light of that, could the chair have ruled the point out of order and NOT stated the motion but directed Member B to find a place in line?

RONR (12th ed) 16.2 states that the adoption of Previous Question does not prevent incidental motions. After Previous Question has been adopted for a series of motions on a consent calendar, is it in order for one member to request to remove items from the consent calendar prior to the vote on the remainder?

A: I move that we paint the meeting room red and buy a new gavel. B: I call for a separate vote on buying a new gavel. Chair: We will have a separate vote on buying a new gavel. The question is on the motion that we paint the meeting room red. C: I move to strike out "red" and insert "green." D: I move the previous question on all pending questions. [Adopted] Question, has the previous question been ordered for buying a new gavel? I.e., is it pending? The explanation of "immediately pending" on page 60 pertains to main motions in connection with subsidiary motions, but the example gavel motion isn't subsidiary. It automatically comes up as a main motion after the painting question is disposed of, though, so in some sense it seems to be pending while the painting motion is pending. Scenario 2: Similarly, if main motion MM1 is pending, and is "postponed till after consideration of [main] motion to __" [MM2], and MM2 is made and has an amendment pending, and teh previous question on all pending questions is ordered, does it include MM1? Scenario 3: MM1 is interrupted by a special order, which then has an amendment offered. Does ordering the previous question on all pending questions include MM1? These examples have an amendment in them, but if the answer if Yes to the above, then it seems the even without an amendment the assembly could order the previous question on all pending questions to include the other motions previously made but not yet disposed of and which automatically become immediately pending when the priority pending motions are disposed of. Correct? Perhaps this is all clear in RONR, but I couldn't find it. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Is the motion to end debate (previous question) in order even if everyone in the meeting has not taken the floor?

"In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate are not allowed in committees" (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 18-21). Q1: Can this rule be suspended? Q2a: If not, by what cited rule / principle, on pp. 263-264, or elsewhere? Q2b: If it can be suspended, does the p. 261, l. 15 rule ("no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule") cause Suspend to require at least one more vote than two-thirds? I lean toward the notion that it cannot be suspended, because the group "protected" is the assembly, rather than some subset of the committee (whether present or absent). And even if there was no objection to "suspend the rules and close debate" (for instance), I'd think that it would not be in order, but that the chair could appropriately say something like, "Although the rules may not be suspended to close debate, the fact that there is no objection to doing so indicates that no one else is seeking to debate, thus we will proceed to putting the motion to a vote." Or am I missing something?